UPDATED: Used a fake ticket and got caught

[IAmStupid]

This happened with (iirc) Southeastern within the last 18 months and other TOCs in the past, very much a flavour of "staff member gone and we've lost all the stuff they were dealing with" or something like that. They all seemed to be resolved easily enough by "trying again" and without any correspondence received by OP at all I think there's plenty of reason to be optimistic here.

Thank you to all that messaged over night including this- I am hoping for the same thing. That I was only 1 week off the 6 months between the ticket & prosecution- so maybe they just pushed it through quickly to avoid going over that. Or as you said, Christmas.

I’ve just sent the letter off- hoping it will arrive on/by Tuesday. Of course New Years adds another layer of delay to it but I am hoping I’ll get something back from them before the 9th. Else I will do an in-person hearing to get some more time.

Feeling hopeful but also accepting that there is a chance this could still all go through to the courts!

Will update soon with anything I hear back!

 

[Haywain]

That I was only 1 week off the 6 months between the ticket & prosecution- so maybe they just pushed it through quickly to avoid going over that.

I think that is likely to be the case. And I am very impressed that the Royal Mail has got it to you so quickly.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think that is likely to be the case. And I am very impressed that the Royal Mail has got it to you so quickly.

The post tends to move quite quickly immediately before and just after Christmas: Royal Mail are geared up for masses of Christmas cards but if everyone has posted early for Christmas there's limited mail to go through the system by 24 December.

 

[Haywain]

The post tends to move quite quickly immediately before and just after Christmas: Royal Mail are geared up for masses of Christmas cards but if everyone has posted early for Christmas there's limited mail to go through the system by 24 December.

Maybe, but for something posted on 24th December to be delivered on 27th is still remarkable to me.

 

[greyman42]

My car insurance is with direct line funnily! But I had not thought of that being effected, nor my other insurances.

I don't think a minor conviction will have any significant impact on your insurances.

 

[Egg Centric]

I don't think a minor conviction will have any significant impact on your insurances.

It certainly used to be the case that a lot of companies will blanket refuse to quote or will apply a blanket uplift, and a quick look on the Unlock website suggests this is still the case. Whether this has any practical impact or not would depend upon the individual's circumstances.

 

[D365]

My car insurance is with direct line funnily! But I had not thought of that being effected, nor my other insurances.

It certainly used to be the case that a lot of companies will blanket refuse to quote or will apply a blanket uplift, and a quick look on the Unlock website suggests this is still the case. Whether this has any practical impact or not would depend upon the individual's circumstances.

I can't verify this first or second hand. But several internet sources suggest that Direct Line (for now) does not require non-motoring convictions to be disclosed.

 

[Richardr]

I've not seen a policy that requires all other convictions to be disclosed, but that is from a very small sample. However, if someone has such a policy, then they will almost certainly be required to disclose a conviction whilst holding the policy. If that is the case, failure to do so could invalidate the policy or at least the non legal minimum part of it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Maybe, but for something posted on 24th December to be delivered on 27th is still remarkable to me.

Sorry to come back to this point: if this is remarkably quick, then that suggests to me that the papers were issued on an earlier date (for the sake of argument, 19 December) but post-dated to 24 December.

I don't know either law or procedure for court papers, but I suppose in theory this could lead to an argument that the papers weren't properly issued or that the case was not properly referred to the court. But in practice, I can see an argument that the defendant has not been disadvantaged by this: if anything they have benefitted by having longer to respond. I can also see a practical argument that the error would not be a point that an unrepresented defendant could easily argue.

So it's probably one of those slightly unusual things that happen sometimes, but not something that will help (or hinder) the OP at all.

 

[island]

Sorry to come back to this point: if this is remarkably quick, then that suggests to me that the papers were issued on an earlier date (for the sake of argument, 19 December) but post-dated to 24 December.

I don't know either law or procedure for court papers, but I suppose in theory this could lead to an argument that the papers weren't properly issued or that the case was not properly referred to the court. But in practice, I can see an argument that the defendant has not been disadvantaged by this: if anything they have benefitted by having longer to respond. I can also see a practical argument that the error would not be a point that an unrepresented defendant could easily argue.

I do not think there is any value in trying to advance this line of argument. The court would need hard proof of an irregularity to take any action, and "it is remarkable to me" is an order of magnitude below hard proof.

So it's probably one of those slightly unusual things that happen sometimes, but not something that will help (or hinder) the OP at all.

I agree.

 

[Haywain]

and "it is remarkable to me" is an order of magnitude below hard proof.

And I am not suggesting anything irregular has occurred.

 

[Egg Centric]

I've not seen a policy that requires all other convictions to be disclosed, but that is from a very small sample. However, if someone has such a policy, then they will almost certainly be required to disclose a conviction whilst holding the policy. If that is the case, failure to do so could invalidate the policy or at least the non legal minimum part of it.

As a data point, my home and car insurance are both through Admiral. If I'm even charged with a criminal offence (never mind convicted) I must tell the home insurance immediately. The car insurance on the other hand I must tell at renewal (except if eg disqualified where I must tell them immediately). It is my understanding that if I had an unspent conviction I wouldn't even be able to get the former. I might run some hypothetical quotes (in a different thread) if anyone's interested?

 

[island]

I might run some hypothetical quotes (in a different thread) if anyone's interested?

If you do decide to do that I strongly urge using completely fake details, because insurers keep track of quotes searched for by people "tweaking" the parameters to get a lower premium.

 

[IAmStupid]

Mini update if anyone is curious.
I have chosen to contact a solicitor just incase I hear nothing back from GTR. Will update if I chose to go down this path but for now we shall see!

 

[WesternLancer]

Mini update if anyone is curious.
I have chosen to contact a solicitor just incase I hear nothing back from GTR. Will update if I chose to go down this path but for now we shall see!

Hopefully one that covers rail ticket issues as a speciality.

Eg from ones mentioned on here

Manak solicitors
Makawanas solicitors

Being two examples that get mentioned by people who have used them to help resolve ticket evasion and related issues.

 

[IAmStupid]

Hopefully one that covers rail ticket issues as a speciality.

Eg from ones mentioned on here

Manak solicitors
Makawanas solicitors

Being two examples that get mentioned by people who have used them to help resolve ticket evasion and related issues.

Yep I’ve gone with Manak! Did a little scouting through some other threads before seeing who to contact. Still just at the enquiry stage so might not actually use them but they seem like a good choice

 

[WesternLancer]

Yep I’ve gone with Manak! Did a little scouting through some other threads before seeing who to contact. Still just at the enquiry stage so might not actually use them but they seem like a good choice

I’ve had no dealings with them but it’s fair to say people who report back here after using Manak do give positive feedback about the help received. You’ve probably seen examples of that.

 

[furlong]

Rather a strange one.

They allege that YOU altered the "ticket" WHEN you were inspected!

Presumably that didn't really happen and whatever was shown to the inspector had been altered previously.

The charge is not that you attempted to use it (24(5) with 20(2)) - but rather they seem to be trying to use the fact you showed it when asked both as evidence of intent to defraud for a prior act of alteration and as evidence that it was you that carried out the alteration (not someone else).

Was there a formal interview with an admission that they have forgotten to include?

What evidence do they have to prove that you are the person that altered the ticket and it wasn't someone else who did it for you?

Together with the rabbit hole of defining what exactly the "ticket" is that was altered, given that it was scanned accurately, I do wonder where this one would go if put to proof.

(In other words, I don't understand why they didn't stick to a straightforward "no ticket" offence rather than all this shoe-horning.)

Definitely still seems worth asking if they'll offer an out-of-court settlement.

 

[IAmStupid]

FINAL UPDATE

Manak Solicitors managed to get me an out of court settlement of £148.90- which was the cost of my ticket plus £135.00 admin free from GTR.

Of course this was in addition to the cost of the solicitors fees- but I would say they were worth it to avoid going to court & getting a record. I also, after doing some maths, think it ended up at about the same cost as court would have been.

I would like to thank everyone who commented on this thread to guide me. You helped with my nerves at first and later to those who encouraged I try and avoid court. I wasn’t thinking too much of the bigger picture and you helped me realise it was absolutely something I should push to avoid.

All is well I guess- but that was definitely the most expensive train ticket of my life. Won’t ever do it again- and am forever lucky that I didn’t get done for fraud!

 

[z444z]

Thanks for the update and glad to hear it’s been resolved! Would you be willing to share what the solicitors costs were? This would help us advise others in future

 

[IAmStupid]

I also wanted to write a summary post for anyone to use as reference

My timeline was as follows:

Offence committed: 2nd July 2025

First Contact from GTR: Mid November 2025

Court Papers Received: End of December 2025

Settlement agreed: 12th January 2026


Also, it seems my case only went to court due to the added step of altering the ticket. It seems GTR is often happy to settle with most people so I would not worry if you have a problem with them.

Thank you again all

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2026 ==

Thanks for the update and glad to hear it’s been resolved! Would you be willing to share what the solicitors costs were? This would help us advise others in future

Yes of course,

It was £200 for an initial call

£600 for them to sort the case out and then an additional £60 to deal with the court letter and reply to the courts in my name (I believe that’s what that was for).

Though I wouldn’t be 100% sure that these are set prices- so I would contact them yourself to check for anyone thinking of using them. I do recommend though!

 

[z444z]

Massively helpful, thank you very much, all the best!

 

[notmyrealname]

Thank you for letting us know how it went and for the detail, I'm glad it turned out OK for you.

Good luck for the future.

 

[styles]

Couldn't ask for a better outcome. Easily worth the money I'd say.

 

[AlterEgo]

GTR settle out of court every time, so, for the benefit of other posters who may find this thread - that was an unnecessarily expensive way of getting the same outcome. You only need to write a letter of apology to them.

 

[pedr]

This was a case where court proceedings had been initiated though, with time to respond to the SJPN running out. Engaging professional support in navigating the situation was more pressing here than it usually is.

 

[John R]

GTR settle out of court every time, so, for the benefit of other posters who may find this thread - that was an unnecessarily expensive way of getting the same outcome. You only need to write a letter of apology to them.

But the OP had written, with advice from here, the usual type of apology letter asking for a settlement, but had still had court papers served. Clearly, the fraudulent way the ticket was altered made a difference to GTR's attitude towards settling, so I don't believe the expense in engaging legal advice was unnecessary, and it had the desired effect.

 

[WesternLancer]

I also wanted to write a summary post for anyone to use as reference

My timeline was as follows:

Offence committed: 2nd July 2025

First Contact from GTR: Mid November 2025

Court Papers Received: End of December 2025

Settlement agreed: 12th January 2026


Also, it seems my case only went to court due to the added step of altering the ticket. It seems GTR is often happy to settle with most people so I would not worry if you have a problem with them.

Thank you again all

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2026 ==


Yes of course,

It was £200 for an initial call

£600 for them to sort the case out and then an additional £60 to deal with the court letter and reply to the courts in my name (I believe that’s what that was for).

Though I wouldn’t be 100% sure that these are set prices- so I would contact them yourself to check for anyone thinking of using them. I do recommend though!

Thanks. V helpful post I think

Good luck for the future

 

[IAmStupid]

GTR settle out of court every time, so, for the benefit of other posters who may find this thread - that was an unnecessarily expensive way of getting the same outcome. You only need to write a letter of apology to them.

I did write a letter and they rejected it, deciding to still proceed with court. Trust me I would’ve loved to avoid the extra fees if I didn’t think it was necessary sadly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2026 ==

Thanks. V helpful post I think

Good luck for the future

Thank you!